Points system to be scrapped for 2009

[donskar]

The most important thing for Max and Bernie is of course to make sure that a RED car wins in the end, we have already been given plenty of proof for that.

Imagine if the Hamilton/Massa situation had been the reverse in Brazil, does anyone seriously believe that Max or Bernie had come up with this medals-folly?

Question: Are you simply ignorant of F1 history in the period preceding M Schu's last few years at Ferrari, or do you simply choose to ignore it?

[xpensive]

Ooops! Ferrari domination is no doubt a sensitive subject to some, I think that I will start a new thread on that to see if I am the only ignorant here.

[andartop]

There are lots of sensitive subjects, the point is how you go on arguing about them: there are people who will post crap but support it beyond dispute, and there are people who will post crap and won't even bother to reason their crap. It might still all be crap (or it might not), but at least well supported crap have an inherent tendency to stick with the conversation, exactly because you have to prove you're smarter than the crap-poster in order to make them go away, whereas unsupported crap is just crap.
Examples of both can be found in all threads, well, in most threads, but usually evolve around two favorite subjects: a)Ferrari always wins because the FIA help them and b)Lewis Hamilton is the worst driver ever.
But the worst kind of all crap, I think, is THE SAME OLD CRAP, that is, crap that's already been done to death but still people go on about it..

[axle]

So Bernie wants overtaking to be "rewarded"...so reward that then.

*On Track* completed overtakes = 1 point, even if you're 19th and take 18th.

That would lead to some funny tactics, LH & FM starting from last to gain lots of points

On a more practical note, why not see what the new regulations do for the *sport* and add in a point for Pole and a Point for Fastest lap.

The simplest fixes are often the best.

[megz]

Check it out.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsp ... 749751.stm

[Spencifer_Murphy]

The simplest fixes are often the best.

Ockams Razor

True. Maybe the simplist fix is to leave it be! We have had two WDC in succession decided by just ONE POINT. How much better can it get? Yes overtaking could be better but hey, to do that we need regulation changes andthat costs money, which nobody has at the moment. Wonderful.

Why don't we just have the technical regulations from 1992, buit without the techno gizmos, all the various safety additions, and smaller wings, diffusers & engines. Hey presto cars we know that will work, cars that CAN overtake, cars that EVERYONE CAN design and afford to run, BUT with all the safety stuff we need (plus the decreased aero & engine size = slower speed which Max seems to like). Job done.

Oh and those cars would look SOOOOOOO much better than these 2009 hybrid monsters we've seen so far.

[Metar]

But the catch is, a 1992 rulebook means more spending: It means more open regulations, it means free engine-configs at 3.0l, and all the wide inventions that appeared ever since...

[Spencifer_Murphy]

Not the engines, i stipulated the small engines (2.4l V8's) keep the ones from this year (2008). And all the wierd innovation since then could easily be banned in much the same way that the 2009 regs stipulate not having chimneys etc.

Yes it would cost to change...but not as much as developing KERS. And if you were lucky enough to be racing back then..."Hello, Mr. Head, you don't happen to have a copy of that design from 1992 do you??? You know, the erm...whats it called? I tyhink it was the FW14B" lol.

It'd sure mix up the grid a little. a 1992 Ferrari...hummm...Kimi would not be pleased. hehe.

But seriously, I wouldn't change a thing atm. I would however be pursuded to go back to 1992 rules that have been updated. But only when theres some money left in the world!

[timbo]

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... /8775.html

Here you can vote! Please vote against medals

[Steven]

http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews ... /8775.html

Here you can vote! Please vote against medals

Jep, added my vote to "NO"
If they want to do something, then just award the winner with 11 points, or 12 for that matter, but the medals are frankly ridiculous.

[CMSMJ1]

Voted no - such a dumb idea.

Make the win a 4point advantage over 2nd. Like it used to be.

Some drivers were always happy to settle for second anyways..RS for example!

[donskar]

Thanks for the link, Timbo.

I voted NO.

[DaveKillens]

I can tolerate many changes, but to dumb down a system just so that it makes simple sense to the lowest common denominator is just plain stupid.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, I don't know what's best, but I've been doing some research.

This is clearly a thing where game theory can be applied.

I'm still reading and, frankly, I don't think I have the time before Christmas to post anything of substance.

However, I don't know how many of you remember the reaction of the teacher of "School of Rock" about the golden stars given in class... Some posts remember me of that, but in reverse. Now, we have become conservatives. Is that what racing is about?

I'm also impressed by a comment by a friend in another forum:

"I would also say that it fits beautifully with Spanky's new found desire to once again recreate the past innovative nature of F1..."

So, taking from School of Rock, I'd say the same thing:

"Rock, (and racing) isn't just sound (or going fast); it's attitude, an expression of rebellion against The Man. 'One rock concert,' declares Jack Black, 'can change the world!'.

I take this as one of my mantras here: "A race can change the world".



"This particular attitude is so out-of-date that it marks "Dewey" as a relic, his heart stuck, like a needle on vinyl, in the '60s and '70s. The beauty of it is, he's a relic who believes, and these kids of School of Rock are such straitlaced overachievers that yesterday's cornball antiestablishment message now comes full circle to meet them."

So, I like to go against the current, even if it implies to go along with Spanky. I say, what the heck, lets's give it a try! I have the time (because I already have a worksheet with positions for some years) to give you the results with some variations of the "scoring". Let's call it "scoring in A major"...

There you go, a few graphs for thinking, give me numbers instead of opinions (and then, give me opinions) :

Scoring of 794 drivers that raced since 1950 until 2007: most people scored very little. Only 50 drivers (6%) scored over 100 points. Schumacher is out of the scale with 1369 points. Next (first on this graph) is Alain Prost, with 768.5 points. 90% of the drivers scored under 70 points in their life, while only two drivers, Schumi and Prost took 10% of all the points in history!


My best fit: it's incredibly good. The coefficient of correlation is a very high 0.97, which means that 97% of the variations in scoring are explained by the equation. I discarded the guys that did not score. The equation is:



In pink, the fit equation. In blue, the career points. For example, the guy that took the 100th position in all history should have 32 points by the equation. In real life, Gunnar Nilson got 31 points.


Maybe, maybe, perhaps, a post can change a race, and if a race can change the world... who knows?

Of course, I have an outrageous theory. I'll try to post it later, now my kids are nagging me because they need the PC. Damn.

[timbo]

Hey, interesting graph indeed! Still, I think it can be a bit altered - I think you should devide points of each driver by the total maximum number of point he could score. Oops, great deal of work, but seeing how good your fit is you may include, say, every third driver. Hmm, still a great deal of work, maybe I should start that myself, don't have much time now though...